Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreAfter a family dispute over land left by one Banta, the respondent (a relation of the parties) had built a small structure on part of the land with the original owner's permission. When the appellant (Jit Ram, later represented by his legal heirs) sued for possession of that portion, the respondent claimed he owned it by virtue of a will and, alternatively, that he had acquired it through adverse possession. Lower courts went back and forth, and the High Court ultimately ruled in the respondent's favour on the adverse-possession point, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's possession of the land was always permissive in nature, he was allowed to build and stay there with the original owner's consent, and that possession which starts permissively cannot later be treated as "hostile" (a basic requirement for adverse possession) unless that permissive character is clearly and affirmatively renounced. Finding no such hostility, the Court held the High Court erred in accepting adverse possession and restored the earlier appellate court's decision in the appellant's favour. However, since the respondent had genuinely spent money building the structure back in 1989, the Court balanced equities by directing the appellants to pay him Rs. 50,000 towards its value before he must vacate and hand over possession.
A person cannot claim ownership of land through "adverse possession" simply by occupying it for a long time if that occupation began with the true owner's permission: permissive possession stays permissive unless it is clearly and openly turned hostile to the owner's knowledge; courts may still order fair compensation for genuine improvements made in good faith.
